Correction its eight. Not right
Hold on with the last EIGHT words. Something like 20,000 Shiite fighters have been in Syria fighting the likes of ISIS, but have returned to defend Baghdad.
If these are Badr militia they would coordinate with the US. If they follow Sadr, probably not.
You live in a fantasy world, you really do.
Are you saying that my point regarding Iraqi Shiite fighters coming back from Syria is not correct and is some kind of fantasy?
The first post in this thread contains a link to this:
Turkey calls for emergency NATO meeting on Iraq: Turkish official
Reuters Jun 11, 2014 1:29 PM
This could turn into a NATO operation to destroy ISIS. An attack on one is an attack on all. Obama is not averse to using military when it is justified. There is no fantasy here. Its too had Obama wont be able to have the Democratic base behind him if he does or if NATO Decides to defend Turkey.
Small fly in the ointment: ISIL has not attacked Turkey.
Well, there can only be one first step, so you need to make up your mind which it is.
So, we take sides with the Shiites and fight the Sunni? This is not just ISIS. This ISIS + Iraqi Sunni Arabs. Or are we siding with Assad to ensure he stays in power?
Your plan has all the earmarks of GWB’s misadventures in Iraq.
I have no easy solution to propose, but …
This conflates acting to start a war with acting to stop a war. :smack:
Just an update, the Syrian airforce has bombed civilian markets in Iraq.
What’s the thinking behind this? Right when I thought I was getting an understanding of the situation, this seems odd to me. Why choose now to kill Iraqi civilians? I could understand them doing targeted strikes against an ISIS convoy or something, but why this?
I don’t have much to add, other than reporting this to you guys, but I would love to hear your thoughts.
Attacks on rebel-friendly civilians are a familiar tactic of the Assad regime, e.g. Gouta. Presumably the goal is to coerce civilians into abandoning support for ISIS. And, naturally, attacking a market is much easier than attacking soldiers/miltia, who a) move around a lot, and b) shoot back.
Ooooh, “implied future claims” against a NATO member? Call in the airstrikes!
Not really. GWB’s totally **Syrian government aircraft bombed Sunni militant targets inside Iraq on Tuesday, further broadening the Middle Eastern crisis a day after Israeli warplanes and rockets struck targets inside Syria.
** adventure was launched when the UNSC had inspectors on the ground disarming Iraq very peacefully. There was essentially no sectarian violence anywhere inside Iraq and there was no al Qaeda or any terrorists operating in the Iraq that Hussein controlled.
Now the violence and terrorists are out of control. Its an entirely different situation that needs to be addressed.
We have not taken sides with the Shiites. In sure that when the US selects a target it will be ISIS. There are Sunnis that will resist ISIS on the ground just like they did with the Anbar Awakening in 2007.
If Maliki can be persuaded to step down that Sunni tribal pact with the ISIS devil could quite quickly dissolve.
It appears that its the tribal leaders at Baiji running the show and will take over the refinery. An interesting development is that the tribal leaders negotiated the deal to provide passage to safety for 450 ISF in exchange for turning the plant over to them.
ISIS would have shot them in the head.
Interesting development to watch.
Well, NATO won’t get into it for preemptive reasons – but Turkey might – and will, if they’re smart.
Doesn’t seem like a smart idea to me and flat out stupid to do it without NATO support. Since generally NOT being in a war is better than being in a war, I’d love to hear why you think Turkey unilaterally getting into it with ISIL is a good idea.
It does not “need to be addressed” by the US. Maliki is asking us to come and save his ass. I see no reason we should do that. You should listen to NPR’s Fresh Air today. You will find it educational.
You are proposing that we take sides. The Sunnis may or may not choose to resist ISIS, but if they do, it will be at a time of their choosing, not ours.
You have no way of knowing that.
The latest Common Sense podcast from Dan Carlin weighs in on recent events in Iraq from a historical point of view. Long story short he points out that this is possibly the beginnins of a three state solution. Posting from my phone so no link but google is your friend,
A three state solution isn’t really news. Unless it actually happens.
So they won’t wind up with an actual established ISIS state on their border.
That’s a rather non-comprehensive response. You know that a large number of Syrian rebel groups dislike ISIL. They were given an ultimatum from the local al-qaida franchise to chill out or gtfo. Their local allies in Iraq will most certainly turn on them at some point. The Kurds will hold northern Iraq. Expand on how the Caliphate shall unfurl, if you please.
That ship has already sailed. I trust the President of the United States knows why and how much this barbaric band of thieves and murderers needs to be addressed. Your seeing ‘no reason’ will have little to do with decisions he will make on this matter.
Here’s a summary from ten days back that might help you to see what’s already going on: